Guest Post by Thomas Fuller
It is not often that I get called a ‘denialist’ and a ‘troll’ for the dark forces of Al Gore on the same day, but it does happen.
It’s because I am a ‘lukewarmer,’ one who believes that the physics of climate change are not by theselves controversial, but who believes that the sensitivity of the earth’s atmosphere to a doubling of concentrations of CO2 is not yet known, but is likely to be lower than activists have claimed.
I suppose it should bother me that I am getting slammed at activist websites such as Only In It For the Gold, Deltoid and ThingsBreak because they think I don’t go far enough, and slammed again here and at The Air Vent because I go too far. Although I want to be liked as much as the next fellow, it doesn’t, because the reasons given for slamming me never seem to match up to the reality of what I write.
Critics here have focused on a lack of substance, so I’ll try and address that in this post. I’m a bit amused at one commenter who yesterday said I understood nothing of energy. (Shh! Don’t tell my clients–I just delivered a 400-page report on alternative energy, and they’ll be ticked off…)
And I’m equally amused that I have to acknowledge that Michael Tobis (at last) got one thing right in a comment yesterday, when he wrote that the real problem we face is coal–and Chinese coal at that. (More on that in a minute.)
The LukeWarmer’s Way
The operation of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is one of the least controversial ideas in physics. The calculations that show a temperature rise of between 1 and 2 degrees Celsius if concentrations double is also widely accepted, including by all skeptic scientists without (AFAIK) exception.
We don’t know the sensitivity of the atmosphere to a doubling of CO2, so the effects of feedbacks are not know. Activists think it is 3 degrees or higher. Contrarians think it is very low–1, maybe 2, tops, some thinking it is even lower.
If activists are right we have a very big problem on our hands. If contrarians are right we don’t. If both are wrong, there is a lukewarmer’s way.
If you believe that about 2 degrees of warming is headed our way this century, it will be a problem–probably not for those reading this, because of our fortunate geography, but for those in the developing world, who will have to add droughts, floods and heatwaves to their current long list of miseries. And it’s not really the size of the temperature rise that worries me, although having a 2 degree average means it will be greater in some places, and again, probably in the least fortunate locales. But it’s really the speed of change that will make it tough to adapt to.
So as a lukewarmer I believe that if there are ‘no regrets’ options, by which I mean things that make sense for us to do no matter what happens to the climate, that we should move quickly to do them in hopes that it will a) help prepare for whatever temperature rise comes our way and b) may serve in some small way to lessen the total temperature rise and its impacts.
The devil is in the details, obviously, and a bigger devil lies in who should decide and how much authority we give them. And we probably don’t get to pick and choose at the right level of detail.
For example, I have no problem with the EPA actively encouraging power plants to shift from old coal configurations to combined cycle natural gas. It’s not a permanent solution but it’s a quick win. But I do have a problem with them classing a school with 3 buses as a major emitter of CO2 and getting them involved in the bureaucratic nightmare of emission control.
I do not want Maurice Strong to control our approach to the world’s environmental issues. I’m reading his book right now (‘Where On Earth Are We Going?, with a foreward by Kofi Annan), and it is horribly bad, and horribly wrong. I’ll give it a full review later, but suffice it to say that I wouldn’t trust him with any responsibility at all.
But there are some in both government and science who I do trust. And I’m willing to work towards helping them get to where we need to go. If a panel composed of both Pielkes, Judith Curry, Mike Kelly, John Christy, Richard Lindzen and a few others were to work on proposed solution, I’d be pretty happy. I might be alone in my joy, I realize.
Another no regrets option I’d like to see is a review of building planning, permitting and insurance in areas that are already vulnerable to tropical storms and floods. We are in the silly situation right now where middle class workers in the Midwest are subsidizing rich people who rebuild ruined but rich second homes in Florida or Malibu Canyon.
We could also allow planes to use modern technology to choose the most fuel efficient routes, descend directly rather than in stages and unblock no-fly spaces left over from the Cold War.
I’d like to see greater use of X prizes to stimulate innovation, as it did with private spacecraft. I’d love to see prizes for utility level storage or better use of composites for distribution, or improvements to HVDC transmission. Prizes almost always work.
I’d like to see more base research done on superconductors, for example, and other technologies that are threatened with being trapped in the Valley of Investment Death.
And I don’t think that list of no regrets options is too controversial, either here or with the activists. (I’m sure I’ll hear about it if it is.)
But the real problem is counting to 3,000. Because a straight line extension of energy consumption gets us to 3,000 quads (quadrillion BTUs) by 2075, with 9.1 billion people developing at present trends and GDP growing at 3% per year.
If those 3,000 quads are supplied by burning coal, we’ll choke on the fumes, no matter what it does to temperatures. China has doubled its energy use since 2000, it may do so again by 2020, and 70% of their energy is provided by coal. The massive traffic jam into Beijing a couple of weeks ago, 90 miles long and lasting three or four days, was composed primarily of small trucks bringing coal into China’s capital. And the pollution and soot that is caused by China’s coal travels–to the Arctic, hastening ice melt and over the rest of the world, as small particulates and just general haze.
So I also advocate pushing for renewable and nuclear energy. I think we’ll need them both. Nuclear is ready to roll right now, but it’s expensive and time consuming to put up as many plants as we’re going to need. Solar is on the verge, and I’d like to give it an extra push. Natural gas is a temporary solution in terms of emissions, but at current prices we can’t ignore its advantages.
We also need to push piecemeal solutions that will not solve our problems by themselves, but are important contributors at a local level, such as geothermal power, or small hydroelectric and run-of-river installations.
No matter what you or I believe about climate change, we face an energy issue that we need to address today. Our coal plants are dramatically cleaner than they used to be. China’s are not. If we don’t want the air we breathe to taste of China’s coal, we need to work on better solutions.
And the worst of all possible worlds is where we don’t do the right thing on energy because we are at war with each other about climate change.
I’m a firm believer in markets, and I like free markets better than the other sort. I also think they work better with light regulation. I think it’s legitimate to nudge the energy market in the direction we want it to go, without giving the reins and the saddle to government bureaucracy. And I do think it can and probably will work.
So I’m not a ‘denialist.’ I’m not a ‘skeptic.’ I’m a lukewarmer–and I’m right.
Thomas Fuller http://www.redbubble.com/people/hfuller
Thomas Fuller
There would be no global warming without new technology. And that’s not because new technology uses so much energy.
It’s because new technology has allowed us to measure new phenomena, and old phenomena with radically more powerful tools.
Mike Smith gives us an example in his book ‘Warnings’, a great story about how technology addressed the warning system for U.S. tornadoes (and which is advertised here on the right hand column). He notes that many tornadoes that are called in to reporting centers today would never have been noticed before, thanks to a growing American population and the ubiquity of mobile telephones.
The same is more or less true of hurricanes. Before satellite coverage began in 1969, we really didn’t know exactly how many hurricanes actually happened in a given year, nor how strong they were. If they didn’t make landfall, they would only be catalogued if planes noticed and reported them, and they would only be measured if specially equipped planes basically flew through them and charted their strength.
It’s certainly also true of measurements of ice extent, volume and area, which would not be possible without satellite imagery.
New technology has had a radical effect on the time series of measurements made for extended periods before the technology was adopted. Sailors used to measure sea surface temperatures using a thermometer in a bucket lowered into the sea. When Argos buoys began providing a network of more accurate measurements, there was a break in the timeline. When surface stations converted to electronic thermocouples on a short leash, the adjustments required caused another break in the data series. (I guess readers here might know something about that already.) Scientists have worked hard to make adjustments to correct for the new sources of data, but the breaks are still pretty noticeable.
The sensible thing would be to give the new technologies time to develop an audited series of measurements long enough to determine trends, rather than grafting new data on top of older, less reliable series. But there are two objections to this: First, who’s to say another new measurement technology won’t come along and replace our brand new toys and resetting the clock to zero? Second, and of more concern, there is a whole scientific establishment out there saying we don’t have time to wait for a pristine data set. Some say we’ve already waited too long, others say that if we start today (and they really mean today), we just might avoid climate disaster.
And if you start to muse on the remarkable coincidence that warming apparently started at the same time as we got all this new-fangled technology, why that makes you a flat-earth denialist. Or something.
As it happens, while serving in the U.S. Navy I took sea surface temperatures with a thermometer in a bucket. There were not many detailed instructions involved. Should I have done it on the sunny side or the shady side? Nearer the pointy end of the ship (that’s technical talk) or the flat back end? How long was I supposed to leave the thermometer in the water?
I wouldn’t want to make momentous decisions based on the quality of data I retrieved from that thermometer, which wasn’t calibrated–I think the U.S.N. stock number was like 22, or some other low number indicating great antiquity. I much prefer what comes out of Argos.
But there are times I wish all those fancy instruments on the satellites were pointing at another planet.
Thomas Fuller href=”http://www.redbubble.com/people/hfuller
It is so strange to me how some want to require the world to go through all sorts of convoluting to get energy when there is plenty of coal that can be used now.
JohnWho (September 17, 2010 at 7:31 am) replied to my comment (“All the value I find in this post is from the comments.”) with: Well, is there not also value in that which prompts valuable comments?
Yes; and the longer this thread runs the more your question proves this — however, as an increasing number of comments work to demolish Thomas Fuller’s essay I have an equally increasing doubt that it was worth Tom’s writing it in the first place, and Anthony’s publishing it in the second.
Wal… maybe that’s a trifle harsh. It should centainly be having a positive effect on the education of young Tom…
Tom it doesn’t “work” in Brazil, the government mandates a 20% mix of ethanol, subsidized it’s production and has a much higher tax on gasoline. Even after all that you cannot compare price per gallon between ethanol and gasoline because ethanol has 30% less energy content per gallon thus lower MPG. Thus it is not cheaper than oil. There is no ethanol “glory” in Brazil and the two articles I linked to explain why.
I am sure these Brazilians “love” Ethanol,
Brazil Ethanol Boom Belied by Diseased Lungs Among Cane Workers (Bloomberg)
‘Slave’ Labourers Freed in Brazil (BBC)
Remove the government mandates, taxes and subsidies and ethanol will not be able to compete with gasoline and diesel.
Roger Carr, you may not like what I write, but I am no longer Young Tom. That was decades ago.
Gotta say a lot of these later comments seem like throwing mud against the wall and seeing if any of it will stick–and so far, like coal trucks in traffic jams and ethanol in Brazil, none of it is.
There are a lot of logical reasons for skepticism and I’ve run into a lot of them–I really have a lot of respect for people like John Christy, who I’ve interviewed, our host here, Jeff Id, and others.
But people are not starving because of sugarcane being turned into ethanol in Brazil, and the article with the picture that doesn’t show any coal trucks… talks about coal trucks.
C’mon folks. You can do better.
Tom Fuller — I do not actively dislike what you write; I do question its usefullness here on WUWT, and I do pay a lot of attention to some of your critics on this thread, critics for whom I have a lot of respect.
As to “young” – “old” — my first written work was published in 1959. Should I stay with “young Tom”?
Don Shaw says:
September 18, 2010 at 12:07 pm
Tom,
You claim continually claim that you are a “lukewarmer” yet on your blog you have indicated that you will vote for Pelosi, and Boxer that you support Obama’s radical energy policy that is based on extreme belief in global warming. These folks hardly practice a moderate position in their belief of CAGW and proposed actions.
Have you changed your mind on your vote or are you being less than forthright on how you portraying yourself on WUWT?
1. Tom Fuller says:
September 18, 2010 at 12:48 pm
Mr. Shaw, I support those politicians despite my disagreement with many of their positions, not because of them. I have to take the bad with the good. Perhaps you Republicans are luckier with your choice of politicians…
Mr Fuller,
You are quite mistaken, I am a registered Democrat. Presently there is so much “bad” in the leadership of that party that I can no longer cast my vote in that direction and the extreme desire to control my carbon use while these elites cast a huge personal carbon footprint is one of the many reasons for my current withholding of my vote for Democrats.
My point is confirmed, your lukewarmer positions here are totally inconsistent with your selection of leaders. Of course that is your right for which we both served in the military.
Roger Carr says:
Sack up and write something yourself , old man. Send it to me, I’ll see if it’s worth posting.
If fact, all the commenters here can do the same. Stand in and take the heat yourselves. work up a post, send it to ctm.
TJS says:
September 18, 2010 at 5:34 pm
1. There has only been 1/2 degree F of warming in 150 years. IPCC and GISS reports of 1.2 F are BS based on cherry picking warmer temp stations, and plentiful “adjustments”. Unadjusted data shows little change.
BZZZNT. wrong.
1. there no cherry picking of warmer stations. see the work on GCos and the work on over 10K daily stations. i can pick any random selection of stations ( and have) and the answer does not change.
2. unadjusted data does show substantial changes. The issue is not the adjustments, but rather the added uncertainty.
please learn the better skeptical arguments. they exist and are important
Steven mosher (September 19, 2010 at 1:49 am) to me: Sack up and write something yourself , old man. Send it to me, I’ll see if it’s worth posting.
No, Steven; I am a student here at WUWT, albeit a critical student, and that is a legitimate position. I am confident I can write at the level Thomas Fuller does and in the same manner, but, as I have explained, I do not believe that breed of writing is appropriate here.
And please do not cry “cop-out!” as I have never tried to cop in; other than with tips to Anthony and questions and brief opinions in comments.
Also note my responses to Tom have been civil, with a modicum of humour to leaven the mix. I am not at war with him.
I, too, love Tom, but don’t think any prescribed contributions are necessary. I think his stuff here is useful and I highly value his opinions. I’m still going to snarl when I hear silliness and Tom, like the rest of us, is not above occasional such episodes, wandering as we all are amongst a paucity of knowledge.
===============
Amino Acids in meteorites wrote above “I knew about the traffic jam. I did not know it “was composed primarily of small trucks bringing coal into China’s capital”.
In 1994 My wife and I drove south from Nanning to near the Vietnam border. Even then, I’d estimate that about 30% of the through traffic was 5 ton pale green trucks carrying coal from 300 km inside Vietnam. In this case, they were taking it to Shanghai. That’s what the local police chief told us, so it might be correct.
I have no trouble at all accepting that the truck jam aforementioned was probable. The trucks can be in poor condition, especially poor brakes, judging from the squeals made when braking.
Here, Tom, check what I just slapped up on the wall to dry. A big steaming pile of water buffalo dung on a hut in India has more energy density than a photovoltaic panel.
=====================
Tom Fuller says:
September 18, 2010 at 8:00 pm
“H.R., it’s actually not a bad idea. Raise taxes from zero to $12/ton on something people like me would ideally like to see less of, and lower taxes by an equivalent amount on labor, something we would dearly like to see more of. […]”
Yeah, but… corporations and businesses do not pay taxes. Only individuals pay taxes. In the end, it is all out of my pocket.
Tell ya’ what; you, and all the others believing as you do, just start sending in 12% more to the government based on your usgae of fossil fuels, and leave me out of it. No government agency needed, the willing do their part, the unwilling are left alone, and it’s all done with that great American “can do” spirit of volunteerism. (It won’t make a bit of difference in the climate, but everyone is happy that way.)
Steven mosher says:
September 19, 2010 at 1:55 am
“BZZZNT. wrong.”
Steven, I am sure we can accept the 20th century temperature record as published by GISS as factual (latest revision, of course).
Adjustments are always an issue. It is not very controversial that deforestation and replacement with farmland at high latitudes where the land is covered with snow during the winter causes increased albedo. It is also not controversial that replacement of farmland by urbanization causes decreased albedo. Since the former took place in temperate areas mostly in the early 20th century and prior to that time period and since urbanization took place mostly in the latter half of the 20th century one would expect the earlier adjustments to be an increase in temperature and the latter adjustments to be a decrease in temperature. The fact that we do not see this pattern is cause for legitimate questioning. There may be reasons why the adjustments do not follow the expected pattern but it is quite reasonable to expect those doing the adjustments to identify what the other factors are.
Roger Carr, okay, you can still call me young. Hope I’m writing as clearly as you when I have as much time in the saddle.
I used to use a lot of statistics, charts and graphs when I wrote about climate change–check out my old columns on examiner.com. I have quit doing so. The reasons are fairly simple: First, I believe most who participate in these discussions have been exposed to the relevant numbers, probably numerous times. Second, I have seen some use it to cover up their lack of scientific credentials. I have no scientific credentials and I write primarily to discuss the reactions and directions of politics, media and the public. Third, I have seen some extraordinarily weak ideas hiding behind graphs. Al Gore did it first and worst, but there are others.
So when I write I assume my readers have seen the graphs, formed their opinion of the science (which I do not seek to change) and are ready to talk about policy options and political directions. That includes people who disagree with me.
I do not believe the science has been settled. Not by James Hansen, not by Roy Spencer. I have a guess that temperatures will rise about 2 degrees C this century, over and above what happened through 2000. If my guess is right, there will be some consequences. I would like to discuss those. That’s why I wander around the web world annoying people.
When I do it on activist sites like Deltoid, Real Climate, Only In It For the Gold, Stoat and Rabett Run, I get called a denier, when I don’t get called worse. You people are far gentler and more considerate, and I appreciate it. But I didn’t come here to change your minds–I’m pretty sure that only a long term trend in climate will change anyone’s minds. I’m trying to insure that a third set of policy options do get discussed.
Tom Fuller says: {September 18, 2010 at 8:00 pm}
” Raise taxes from zero to $12/ton on something people like me would ideally like to see less of, and lower taxes by an equivalent amount on labor, something we would dearly like to see more of. ”
So the leopard finally shows his true spots! You are not a luke warmer, you are a liberal holier than thou fascist who believes government’s job is to control people, as long as the control agrees with your point of view.
Tom in Florida, I’m not a leopard and any spots that are changing on me need to be reported to my doctor double quick.
Every time I wander into a discussion about new taxes and government control, it spirals quickly down into an argument with a very low level of information exchange.
The policies I discuss are intended to be looked at in the context of the governments we currently have, not some Platonic ideal. We currently try to raise money for government departments and we currently try to influence behaviour with changes to taxes.
I don’t think a revenue neutral attempt to shift the tax burden from employees and employers to those who could choose to convert from coal to natural gas but need an added incentive to do so is monstrous. Not in this country. Not in this century.
Tom Fuller says: (September 19, 2010 at 8:40 am)
“The policies I discuss are intended to be looked at in the context of the governments we currently have, not some Platonic ideal.”
That, in my opinion, is pure spin. The problem with the government we currently have is that it needs to be changed back to a more platonic ideal.
” We currently try to raise money for government departments and we currently try to influence behaviour with changes to taxes.”
This is also what is wrong and needs to be changed. Too many government departments and too many taxes used to try an make behavior changes. Governments are instituted by the people to ensure our safety and secure our natural rights of freedom. They have morphed into something else which you seem to condone. But I assume you only condone government forcing when it applies to your ideals and not mine.
“I don’t think a revenue neutral attempt to shift the tax burden from employees and employers to those who could choose to convert from coal to natural gas but need an added incentive to do so is monstrous.”
You seem to miss the point that a company is in business to make a profit for its investors. Any other benefit is just extra. Government interference is always monstrous but we tend to tolerate it at certain levels rather than constantly fight it.
But what you are suggesting is based solely on your belief that you are right and those who do not conform to your view are not only wrong but also need to be punished because they see it differently.
Tom in Florida,
I’ll start with your last point and work up, if that’s okay.
I am not trying to make anyone conform to my view. I am stating my view and trying to give reasons why I hold it.
If a business can make more money by switching to cheaper natural gas than coal, why don’t they? Because the payback time and capital investment costs work against it. Using lower taxes on natural gas and higher taxes on coal is an attempt to change the balance of the equation without coercion.
As for the broader role of government, you may be correct–I don’t think so, which is why I’m a librul and you are not. But even if you are correct, while you are engaged in reforming government I am not willing to let everything stand around and wait until you are finished.
Tom Fuller,
Are you going to address me directly in what I have said?
Tom Fuller,
Not addressing me directly, and not dealing with all the points I have brought up, says more about you than it does about me.
🙂
Tom Fuller,
If you believe that jacking up taxes on the cheapest energy available does not amount to government coercion, no wonder you’re on the wrong track.
I understand that you’re not science oriented like most of us here. The following letter may provide some education by showing there is nothing wrong with energy produced from coal.
This letter appeared in the Rockhampton (Queensland Australia) morning Bulletin on 22.12.09:
Just as the internal combustion engine has been greatly improved and its emissions reduced to almost nothing but harmless water vapor and CO2, coal plants have been made as pollution free as natural gas power. Demonizing coal is part of the overall attack on modern industrial society but only in the West. China, India, Russia, Brazil and a hundred smaller countries get a pass, with head-nodding approval by science-challenged people who emit erroneous opinions based on wrong assumptions and beliefs.
Tom in Florida
I agree with you that government has no place influencing people where it thinks they should go. In fact the Constitution was made to keep government out of peoples lives. It can easily be said that government control of people is un-American.
Milton Friedman may have summed it up well:
Tom Fuller
But people are not starving because of sugarcane being turned into ethanol in Brazil
The land being used for biofuels should be used for making food.